MASTEROPPGAVE
English language teachers' experiences of using educational technology teaching the core element communication during the Covid-19 pandemic
Isaac Øgaard Solløs
01.09.2021
Master Fremmedspråk i skolen
Avdeling for økonomi, språk og samfunnsfag
Acknowledgements
I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude towards my supervisor Karin Dahlberg Pettersen, whose expertise on the field of educational technology is truly inspiring!
Your precise, constructive and motivating guidance throughout the work with this thesis was of great help.
Furthermore, a huge thank you to all the teachers who took time out of their schedules, which during this extraordinary time in history were even busier than usual, to participate in this research project. Without them and the insight they provided, by sharing their thoughts and experiences, this thesis would not have been possible.
Last, but not least, a warm thank you to my family and friends, with whom I have been able to clear my thoughts. Your encouraging words and support gave me motivation throughout this sometimes challenging yet rewarding process.
Hvaler/Halden, September 2021
Abstract
In the globalized society of the 21st century, digital technology has also entered lower secondary schools in Norway. Many teachers have positive attitudes towards the use of educational technology in teaching, and the availability and quality of educational technology are quite high (Røkenes & Krumvik, 2016, Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020, Fjørtoft, 2020).
Simultaneously, these factors are not always reflected in the teaching. Many teachers feel insecure and hesitant in implementing educational technology into their instructions (Røkenes & Krumvik, 2016). When schools closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the teachers were left no choice but to base their teaching around educational technology. This thesis has therefore explored English language teachers' experiences of using educational technology teaching the core element communication during the Covid-19 pandemic.
A mixed method was used, combining a quantitative questionnaire and a qualitative focus group interview. The relatively small size of the samples and the selection process limits the generalisability. Thus, the results mainly reflect the experiences of the two sample groups and thus, indicate tendencies. Caution is practiced when concluding the thesis.
A rich variety of educational technology and methods were used during digital distance teaching. However, individual assignments seemed to dominate, and written assignments were used more often than oral assignments. Consequently, authentic, and practical language situations were not prioritized, limiting the students´ learning outcome related to. Generally, the students reached a better and more satisfactory learning outcome in the written aspects of the curriculum. Social learning was also less prioritized in the digital English language teaching. Last, many teachers, although feeling quite confident prior to the schools closing, reported of an increase in knowledge of and how to implement educational technology during the pandemic.
Key words: educational technology, lower secondary school, English language teaching, Covid-19
Table of contents
1. English language teachers' experiences of using educational technology teaching the
core element communication during the Covid-19 pandemic ... 6
1.1 Background ... 6
1.2 Main aim and research questions ... 6
1.3 Design ... 7
2. Theoretical foundation ... 8
2.1 Previous research ... 9
2.2 Digital literacy ... 12
2.2.1 Digital skills in the English subject ... 13
2.2.2 Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers (PfDK) ... 14
2.3 Communication ... 16
2.3.1 Linear model ... 16
2.3.2 Interactional model ... 17
2.3.3 Transactional model ... 17
2.3.4 Communication in the English Subject curriculum ... 18
2.3.5 Communication using educational technology in the CEFR ... 18
2.4 Socio-cultural perspectives on knowledge and learning in the classroom ... 19
2.4.1 Social interaction and language learning ... 20
2.5 Student-teacher relation ... 21
3. Research design and method ... 22
3.1 Mixed methods ... 23
3.1.1 Quantitative research method ... 24
3.1.1.1 Piloting the questionnaire. ... 24
3.1.1.2 The Main questionnaire. ... 25
3.1.1.3 Nettskjema. ... 26
3.1.1.4 Sample selection process. ... 26
3.1.2 Qualitative research method ... 27
3.1.2.1 Sample selection. ... 28
3.2 Data analysis ... 29
3.2.1 Quantitative data analysis ... 29
3.2.2 Qualitative data analysis ... 30
3.3 Ethical considerations ... 31
3.4 Research quality ... 31
3.4.1 Method triangulation ... 32
3.4.2 Reliability ... 32
3.4.3 Validity ... 32
4. Results ... 33
4.1 Quantitative questionnaire ... 34
4.1.1 General information ... 34
4.1.2 The use of educational technology in the English subject ... 34
4.1.3 Organising digital English language teaching ... 36
4.1.4 Social learning ... 41
4.2 Qualitative focus group interview ... 41
4.2.1 General information ... 42
4.2.2 The use of educational technology in the English subject ... 42
4.2.3 Organising the digital English language teaching ... 44
4.2.4 Social learning ... 48
5. Discussion ... 50
5.1 Accessibility, attitudes and success ... 50
5.2 Knowledge is key ... 52
5.3 Guidance generates confidence ... 53
5.4 The social digital classroom ... 53
5.5 Limitations to the study ... 56
6. Summary and conclusion ... 57
6.1 Educational implications and further research ... 58
References ... 60
Appendices ... 63
Appendix A ... 63
Appendix B ... 68
Appendix C ... 71
Appendix D ... 74
Figure list ... 81
Reflection notes ... 82
1. English language teachers' experiences of using educational technology teaching the core element communication during the Covid-19
pandemic 1.1 Background
Digital technology has become an integral part of many aspects of the globalized society of the 21st century, one of which is Norwegian lower secondary schools. Research shows that many teachers express positive attitudes towards the use of technology in the classroom (Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016, Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020, Fjørtoft, 2020). The teachers claim that educational technology in language learning has a positive impact on student motivation, the effectiveness of the classes, ease of communication and flexibility of tasks (Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016, Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020, Fjørtoft, 2020). Blikstad- Balas & Kletten (2020) argue that the teacher is crucial in the implementation of technology into teaching. If the teachers´ knowledge and ability to use the educational technology lacks, no amount of available technology will compensate for this (Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020).
An eye-opening finding, when considered in the context of the previous statements, was done by Røkenes & Krumsvik (2016), whose research revealed indications of a mismatch between the Norwegian national steering documents, the aims of the schools and what is being done, both in the schools and in the teacher education, to prepare the teachers to use educational technology in their teaching. Furthermore, they argue that this mismatch results in teachers who feel unprepared and insecure using existing technology and integrating new technology into their teaching (Røkenes & Krumsviks, 2016).
1.2 Main aim and research questions
Based on the findings of the previous research, a new and interesting research space appeared in the spring of 2020. Due to the tragic and world-changing Covid-19 pandemic, schools were forced to close for longer periods of time. During these periods, much or all teaching was done digitally, basing the teaching around the use of educational technology, and teachers were no longer given a choice whether to use it or not.
Much of the previous research on the use of educational technology has a fairly broad scope, focusing on the use of educational technology in teaching in general. This thesis will have a more refined field of interest, focusing on the English subject and its core element communication. The main aim of this thesis is thus to get an insight into English language
teachers' experiences of using educational technology teaching the core element communication during the Covid-19 pandemic.
To answer the main aim of the thesis, the following research questions are central. They help break down the main aim into more specific, manageable parts, which together provide a holistic view of the teachers´ experiences during this extraordinary time in the history of language teaching. The three research questions are:
Q1. How did the teachers facilitate the use of educational technology through this period to reach curriculum aims concerning communication?
Q2. To what extent do the teachers now feel confident using technology in their teaching compared to prior to the Covid-19 pandemic?
Q3. The core curriculum emphasizes that “school shall support and contribute to the social learning and development of the pupils”. To what degree did the teachers succeed in focusing on this perspective in the teaching of English during the pandemic?
1.3 Design
The thesis starts by establishing a theoretical foundation, presenting the findings of previous research on the use of educational technology in the context of teaching (Røknes &
Krumsvik, 2019, Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020, Fjørtoft, 2020). Furthermore, the theoretical concept of digital literacy is defined and placed within the context of English language teaching and learning. The teachers´ digital skills is another crucial factor in implementing educational technology into language teaching. Therefore, the Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers is presented.
Communication is the first of the three core elements in the English subject curriculum.
A definition of communication is thus needed. Three models are used to do so. Furthermore, the connection between communication and the English subject curriculum is drawn. The same is done with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and communication using educational technology. The theoretical foundation is completed by presenting socio-cultural perspectives on knowledge and learning in the classroom.
Following the theoretical foundation, a comprehensive description of the research design and methods used in this thesis is given. In this chapter, central aspects of the mixed methodology chosen for the research of this thesis are presented. The mixed method combines a quantitative questionnaire and a qualitative focus group interview. This is done to combine the strengths of the two methods, and limit their weaknesses.
As both the theoretical foundation and the research design and methodology are accounted for, the results and findings are presented. The results of the questionnaire and the focus group interview are shown separately. Following their presentation, the findings are discussed in light of the previous research and the theoretical foundation. The quantitative and qualitative results are used to support and strengthen each other.
Finally, the thesis is summarized. Based on the findings of the research, the main aim and the additional research questions are being answered and concluding remarks made, still keeping in mind that the findings mainly represent the thoughts and experiences of the two sample groups of the research. The pedagogical implications of the findings are commented, as is the potential for further research.
2. Theoretical foundation
Theory acts as the framework for research and are among the deciding factors in determining its course. Furthermore, a theoretical foundation works as a tool when working with the different parts of the research project. In this thesis, the aim is to investigate how English language teachers in lower secondary school in Norway use educational technology when working with the curriculum's core element Communication (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020), through digital distance teaching due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The following section will thus present several theoretical perspectives crucial in answering the main aim of the thesis.
First, in order to place the research of this thesis within a context, the main aspects of three previous research projects within the field of educational technology and teaching will be presented. As distance teaching in the 21st century always involves some sort of digital technology, knowledge on how to use and interact with technology appropriately is crucial, for both students and teachers alike. The focus on use of educational technology is also evident from the English subject curriculum. The concept of digital literacy will therefore be presented.
In this context, the Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers is relevant in guiding teachers in developing their own digital literacies to be prepared to guide students in the digital environments they may partake in during their education (Kelentic, Helland &
Arstorp, 2017).
Following this, theories on communication and a socio-cultural perspective on knowledge and learning in the classroom are described. Such theories differ from their succeeding theories, in the fact that socio-cultural theories emphasize the importance of the social context surrounding every human action, thus also learning (Magnar, Lillejord, Nordahl,
& Helland, 2015). Here, different models of communication will also be presented.
Furthermore, the aspects of the subject curriculum for English concerning communication will be presented (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020).
Last, as human interactions are absolutely essential in a socio-cultural learning environment, and communication is the primary tool humans have in such contexts, perspectives on motivation, building relations and learning collectively are all relevant in this context.
2.1 Previous research
To place the research of this thesis within a specific context, the following section will present the main aspects of three previous research projects. Although English is not mentioned specifically, these projects still concern aspects of the use of educational technology in English language teaching. The research is presented chronologically.
The first project is titled “Prepared to teach ESL with ICT? A study of digital competence in Norwegian Teacher Education” (Røknes & Krumsvik, 2016). The researchers sat out to examine how secondary student teachers are educated to teach with educational technology through the didactics course “English as a Second Language” offered at a teacher education program in Norway (Røknes & Krumsvik, 2019). The research produced the following main findings.
First, the results show the importance of a systematic and reflected approach to integration and implementation of educational technology through the teacher education. In this context the institutions responsible for the teacher education need to work as models for the use of educational technology (Røknes & Krumsvik, 2016). The teacher educators and mentor teachers need to reflect the desired use of educational technology by using technology in innovative, creative and inspiring ways themselves. The research data found that only 50 percent of the student teachers viewed their teacher educators as role models of educational technology use (Røknes & Krumsvik, 2016). Based on this, Røknes & Krumsvik (2016) argue that teacher educators and mentor teachers need to be reminded of their role as models for using and integrating educational technology in English language teaching.
Another interesting finding highlights the need for the student teachers to experience and reflect on the value of technology in an educational context (Røknes & Krumsvik, 2016).
The student teachers highlighted activities giving them opportunities to work and experience with relevant resources as especially valuable (Røknes & Krumsvik, 2016). Such activities may
give the student teachers time to reflect on, discuss and try out different didactical uses of educational technology related to their subject discipline.
Finally, Røknes & Krumsvik (2016) indicate that, despite the fact that student teachers' self-perceived digital competence and didactical use of educational technology were relatively high, the research showed that their use of educational technology in English language teaching was dominated by “elementary and basic digital skills” (Røknes & Krumsvik, 2016, p. 17). As a result, Røknes & Krumsvik (2016) argue that future English language teacher education needs to increase the focus on promoting the more complex dimensions of digital competence.
Based on these findings, Røkenes & Krumsvik (2016), indicate that there is often a mismatch between the steering documents, the aims of the schools and what is done, both in the schools and classrooms, as well as in the teacher education in preparing the teachers to use educational technology in their teaching. Furthermore, they claim that this mismatch results in teachers feeling unprepared and insecure in using existing technology and also in integrating new technology into their teaching, which in turn often results in teachers putting off integrating new and innovative uses of educational technology into their teaching (Røkenes &
Krumsviks, 2016).
Another relevant research project in the context of educational technology in teaching was conducted by Blikstad-Balas & Kletten (2020). In their article “Still a long way to go”, Blikstad-Balas & Kletten (2020) investigate how and for what purpose teachers use technology in their everyday instructions.
Initially, the article presents a literature review, covering three topics: access to educational technology in the classroom, teachers´ competence and teachers´ attitudes towards educational technology. This review shows that most lower-secondary schools can provide permanent 1:1 access to educational technology, either by lending laptops or tablets to their students or having computer rooms available to them (Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020). Thus, the access to educational technology in Norwegian lower secondary schools should be sufficient enough to enable broad use of educational technology in the classroom.
Moreover, the review shows that many teachers have positive attitudes towards the use of educational technology in the classroom (Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020). As many as 80 percent of the respondents in Gudmunsdottir and Hatlevik´s research (2018, in Blikstad-Balas
& Kletten, 2020) expressed positive attitude toward educational technology in an educational context.
At the same time, approximately half of the respondents also expressed concerns about the possible challenges of educational technology use (Gudmunsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018, in
Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020). Many teachers view their digital competence as one area limiting the integration and use of educational technology in their teaching (Bliksad-Balas &
Kletten, 2020). Throndsen et al. (2019, in Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020) show that one out of five teachers express a need for expanding their digital competence and how to integrate educational technology into their teaching. Similarly, Gudmundsdottis & Hatlevik (2018, in Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020) found that almost 50 percent of the participating teachers viewed their own educational technology training as poor in terms of preparing them for integrating educational technology into their teaching.
The key findings of Blikstad-Balas & Kletten´s (2020) research are quite interesting when compared to the other reviewed literature. Their data indicate that, despite the fact that access was sufficient and attitudes were positive, much of the implementation and use of technology in the English language classes was “limited to supporting traditional teacher centred practices, with low student participation”, which the researchers argue, indicates that educational technology was often used for traditional, transmissive pedagogy (Blikkstad-Balas
& Kletten, 2020, p. 55).
When the students used technology, they were mostly writing digital texts, individually, an activity which brings little new to the pedagogical practices and does not make use of the opportunities associated with educational technology (Blikkstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020).
Blikkstad-Balas & Kletten (2020) argue that the implementation of digital technology and the development of digital competence in schools need to be based around more than just a curriculum with great intentions and a basic digital infrastructure. Furthermore, they argue that
“structures at a national level are not enough, and there is an urgent need for professional development at the local level to increase the instructional repertoire and the didactical motivation of teachers in relation to digital technology” (Blikkstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020, p.
55).
When schools closed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, Sintef began researching teachers´ experiences with digital teaching during the spring of 2020 and how the closed schools and resulting digital home schooling impacted the teaching and learning. This research was published in the report Nær og fjern in August of 2020 (Fjørtoft, 2020). The report sheds light on both positive and negative aspects of the infrastructure, conditions, learning environment and the professional digital competence of the teachers and schools.
The report shows that, the teachers utilised a wide variety of digital resources. One common aspect was the use of tools enabling video communication (Fjørtoft, 2020). According to many teachers, the use of digital teaching material made the planning process of the teaching
more time consuming. On the other hand, the teachers also argued that these resources often made it easier to differentiate between students (Fjørtoft, 2020).
Most of the challenges the teachers pointed out, were related to the learning environment of the classes and to the social factors the students had to cope with. Some of the teachers felt that their role as class leaders was compromised by this form of teaching. They felt that their pedagogical scope of action became limited by the fact that none of the participants was gathered physically (Fjørtoft, 2020).
Nær og fjern points out that there was a large variation in the starting point and the teachers´ experience level using educational technology in their teaching. Furthermore, despite the challenges the teachers faced, the report indicates that they have, in general, managed the new digital classroom in a good way. They also express that they feel they have expanded their digital competence and feel better prepared to use educational technology in the classroom (Fjørtoft, 2020).
2.2 Digital literacy
In an ever-changing society, where new technological innovations and digital media play an increasing role in our everyday lives, it is becoming clear that the 21st-century skills need to be developed for both teachers and students. These skills are presented by Dudney, Hockly and Pegrum (2014) as: creativity, innovation, critical thinking and problem-solving, collaboration and teamwork, autonomy, flexibility and lifelong learning, all crucial for actively participating in society. Dudney et al. (2014) argue that the ability to engage actively and reflected with digital technologies are central to these skills. Dudney et al. (2014, p. 2) define these abilities as digital literacies, which are “the individual and social skills needed to effectively interpret, manage, share and create meaning in the growing range of digital communication channels.”
Magnar, Lillejord, Nordahl, & Helland (2015) argue that digital literacy involves the ability to use digital tools, medias and resources appropriately, to be able to solve practical tasks, gather and edit information, create digital products and communicate using new technology. They claim that as personal computers have become one of the most common and important means of communicating, having a PC and an internet connection are no longer sufficient (Magnar et al. 2015). Being able to use digital media in a way which contributes positively to our everyday lives, will make certain tasks easier and enable new possibilities and solutions central to the use of technology. Not only does technology enable new ways to communicate and interconnect people, it also enables new perspectives on learning and
knowledge (Magnar et al., 2015). As well as being essential for participating in society in general, digital literacies are important in the context of the language classroom (Spires, Paul
& Kerkhoff, 2017).
Dudney et al. (2014) divide digital literacies into four focus groups: language, information, connections and (re-)design. This division is meant as a theoretical model, as the literacies are much intertwined and often rely on each another. As the concept of digital literacy is quite complex, the literacies presented in the following section, are a selection of the more central literacies needed in order to reach the goals of the curriculum for English teaching in lower secondary school.
Communicating through the use of language is crucial to most or all forms of digital literacy. Despite changes in the format through the introduction of digital technology, print literacy, i.e., the ability to comprehend and create meaning through written text, is as relevant as ever before, much digital communication still involves written language (Dudney et al, 2014). As the format changes, so does the form of communication. One form of digital communication is textspeak. This is the language of online chatrooms and text messages, where abbreviations and emoticons are central aspects in saving time and space as well as in preventing misunderstandings. The ability to communicate effectively using this digital language is what Dudney et al. (2014) call texting literacy. According to Kemp (2011, in Dudney et al, 2014) positive correlation often occurs between a student's texting literacy and print literacy. In order to bend the rules, one must know them to begin with. Kemp (2011, in Dudney et al, 2014) claims that most students are aware of the difference between textspeak and standard language, independent of their ability to use either of them.
Multimedia literacy is another central literacy in a language learning classroom where digital technology is present. As Dudney et al (2014, p. 11) argue, “in a world of screens, we no longer rely on language alone to carry the weight of our communication”. Being able to interpret and create texts in multiple media and to use images, sound and video is essential to multimedia literacy (Dudney et al, 2014). In this context, mobile literacy can also be quite relevant, as most of the activity on a mobile devise combines different medias. Mobile literacy includes “the ability to navigate, interpret information from, contribute information to, and communicate through the mobile internet” (Dudney et al, 2014, p. 14).
2.2.1 Digital skills in the English subject
Digital literacy plays a central part in the English subject curriculum as well. One of the four basic skills the curriculum presents is digital skills (The Norwegian Directorate of
Education, 2020). This does involve the ability to use digital media and resources to strengthen the language learning process, when interacting with authentic language and interlocutors and to acquire relevant knowledge to the English subject (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020). To do so, the students must act cautious and reflected when interacting and communicating in a digital context. The digital skills in the English subject develop from exploring the language to being able to interact with others, create texts and acquire knowledge by gathering, exploring and critically assess information from a variety of sources using the English language (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020). The subject aims of the curricula does also cover a digital aspect. One of the aims require the students to use different digital recourses and aids in the language learning process, in creating texts and in interaction with others (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020).
2.2.2 Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers (PfDK)
Adapting to the changing teaching context caused by new technology can be a challenging task for teachers. As technology has made information much more accessible, it is important that students become more than passive consumers of this information. They now also need to be critical users and active content producers themselves (Kelentic, Helland &
Arstorp, 2017). As a result, the role of the teacher has changed as well. Teachers now need to guide students in “identifying credible information, quoting sources, applying ethical values and attitudes in communication and interaction, producing their own digital resources, and developing a reflective relationship in relation to their own and others' actions, cultural differences, values and rights” (Kelentic et al, 2017, p. 1). To do so, the teachers need to have sufficient professional digital competence. As the previous research indicated, many teachers feel this is not the case (Røknes & Krumsvik, 2019, Blikstad-Balas & Kletten, 2020, Fjørtoft, 2020). Knowing what technology to integrate and use in certain situations and how to do so most successfully can be quite challenging. The Professional Digital Competence Framework for teachers can be of great help to teachers in implementing educational technology into their teaching successfully (Kelentic et al., 2017).
According to Kelentic et al. (2017) the framework has two aims, one with focus on professional development, and one on the actual practice of the profession. For teachers, the second aim is most relevant in their everyday work. The framework is designed to work as a common guide which schools can use when “evaluating and following up on teachers' professional digital competence” (Kelentic et al., 2017, p. 2). The content of the framework is based on several other documents, such as national regulations, guidelines for teacher
education programmes, the national curriculum, the Basic Skills Framework, and the National Qualifications Framework (Kelentic et al., 2017). The framework consists of seven competence areas, all connected to digital perspectives on knowledge, skills and competence. The areas are subject and basic skills, school in society, ethics, pedagogy and subject didactics, leadership of learning processes, interaction and communication, change and development.
The areas are all valued equally, and together they make up the professional, digitally competent teacher (Kelentic et al., 2017).
The area subject and basic skills point out that teachers need to be aware of the changes and expansions resulted by the digital development. Furthermore, they need to be familiar with how they can help their students achieve the competence aims of the subject curriculum and work on expanding their students´ basic skills through integrating digital resources into their teaching (Kelentic et al., 2017).
Moreover, the second area, school in society, argues how teachers need to reflect on perspectives of digital development and the role and function of digital media in society (Kelentic et al., 2017). As a part of this, teachers need to understand their own role as well as the role of the school in bridging the gap between their students and the modern digital society.
This is done by guiding students into being active and reflected participants in the digital and democratic society (Kelentic et al., 2017).
Thus, teachers need to be familiar with the ethics and values of both school and society in relation to digitalization. Teachers have a direct impact on the development of their students´
digital judgement, understanding and ability to act in line with the ethics and values of society (Kelentic et al., 2017).
The framework also argues that a professional and digitally competent teacher reflects and develops teachers pedagogical and didactical knowledge related to their subjects and in a digital environment. This entails the teachers integrating “digital resources into their planning, organisation, implementation and evaluation of the teaching in order to foster pupils´ learning and development” (Kelentic et al., 2017, p. 7).
Furthermore, the framework points out the importance of teachers being able to guide their students when working in digital environments; teachers need to understand and reflect on how such digital environments can constantly change and how this may create challenges for their pedagogical and didactical work. Knowing and utilizing the opportunities inherent in digital resources may help teachers solve these challenges. The peculiarity of different digital resources may also be used to vary the teaching and to adapt it to fit diverse groups of students as well as each student´s individual needs (Kelentic et al., 2017). The teachers´ ability to
interact and communicate with their students is essential. Kelentic et al. (2017, p. 9) argue that
“a professional, digitally competent teacher uses digital communication channels for information, collaboration, and knowledge sharing with various stakeholders in a way that builds trust, and contributes to participation and interaction”. Teachers need to know the communicational opportunities digital resources offer and how interacting them in a digital environment change and expands the space for communication (Kelentic et al., 2017). As a result of this knowledge, teachers become able to facilitate and organise good, productive learning environments, where they guide their students in suitable and productive interactions with others in digital arenas (Kelentic et al., 2017).
Lastly, as digital competence is a dynamic, situational and flexible process, teachers need to develop and improve their competence and be flexible in their practices to keep up with the changes of the digital society. This can be done both individually and through teachers sharing their knowledge and experiences with their teaching community (Kelentic et al., 2017).
2.3 Communication
The socio-cultural theory argues that communication is among the most powerful tools humans poses (Vygotsky, 1978). But what exactly does communication involve?
Communication can be described as the act of constructing, decoding and discussing meaning.
It can be done through verbal, nonverbal or textual tools and be aural, visual, or even physical.
No matter the form, communication is always a learned behaviour (Corey, 2019). Most humans are born with the physical requirements for communication: the abilities to speak, hear and see.
However, we have to learn the codes, symbols and systems of language to communicate successfully (Corey, 2019).
Several theoretical models explain the social process of communication using pictures or visual representations of the complex phenomenon, each emphasizing different aspects of the process (Corey, 2019). The models can be quite useful as they simplify the process, identifying the various elements of communication, and illustrate how the different parts of the process are in fact quite interrelated by combine verbal and visual elements. The three most common are the linear, interactional and transactional model (Corey, 2019).
2.3.1 Linear model
The linear model was originally presented by Shannon & Weaver (1948, in Corey, 2019), where they described communication as a linear process. This model describes how a sender (the source of the message) transmits a message (may consist of the sounds, words, or
behaviours) through a channel (the pathway or route for communication) to a receiver or listener (the target or recipient of the message) (Corey, 2019). During this process the message may be exposed to noise, which includes any interference in the channel or distortion of the message (Corey, 2019).
This model had quite an impact on its field when it was first presented. Later it has been viewed as too simple. The model has been criticised for illustrating communication as a one- way process, providing only one channel for one message, where many will argue that it is in fact a dynamic action between multiple parties (Corey, 2019). It is also argued that the messages illustrated in the model are too clear-cut, having a definite beginning and end, where some will argue that communication is seldom this well-structured (Corey, 2019).
2.3.2 Interactional model
As a consequence of the linear models´ lack of complexity, the interactional model illustrates communication as an ongoing process, using two channels where messages and feedback flow between two parties (Corey, 2019). Feedback is in this context, the response the receiver gives to the sender and indicates whether the message was received and understood or not. This can include both verbal or nonverbal responses (Corey, 2019).
How the environment, experiences, culture and heredity influence how a sender constructs a message is in the context of the interactional model known as the field of experience. All individuals have their own individual field of experience, which in turn, influence their interactions, making every communicational situation unique (Corey, 2019).
Although the interactional model is more dynamic than the linear model, it still has its limitations. Even though the participants can be both senders and receivers, they cannot be both simultaneously, which they, in real life situations, would most likely be, as such situations are quite fluid (Corey, 2019).
2.3.3 Transactional model
Compared to both the linear and the interactional models, the transaction model is the most dynamic. In this model, the participants are referred to as communicators rather than senders and receivers, indicating that communication is a reciprocal. All the participants can both send and receive messages, making communication a transaction and a cooperative action where people create shared meaning through a more dynamic process (Corey, 2019). In this model, the field of experiences is even more central. In addition to having a unique field of experience, the participants also need to establish a shared field of experiences, with some shared aspects of culture, language or environment in order to communicate. In addition,
messages will influence the responses and vice versa. Thus, no message stands alone, but all messages in a conversation are instead interrelated (Corey, 2019).
2.3.4 Communication in the English Subject curriculum
As the world is becoming more globalized, and more and more interaction is done through digital devices, Norwegian youths are constantly being exposed to new impressions and information. A vast majority of these impressions are presented using the English language. Thus, the role of the English subject is constantly increasing. The subject curriculum states that English is a central subject in developing the students´ cultural understanding, their abilities to communicate, to promote formation and identity development (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020). Through working with the subject, the students will be able to communicate with others locally and globally, regardless of their cultural and language background (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020). The subject shall contribute to the development of the students´ intercultural understanding, and of different ways of living, thinking and communicating. Furthermore, the subject shall prepare the students for further education and participation in a society and a career that requires reading, writing and communicating orally using the English language (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020).
2.3.4.1 The core element Communication. The renewal of the National curriculum presents three core elements for the English curriculum, one of which is communication (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020). This core element involves the ability to create meaning using (the English) language and being able to use (the English) language in formal and informal contexts. The student shall implement their own strategies in communication, orally and written in different contexts and by using various media and sources. The students shall experience, use and explore the (English) language from the very beginning. The language teaching shall facilitate opportunities for the students to participate in and interact with authentic and practical stations and contexts (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020).
2.3.5 Communication using educational technology in the CEFR
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) points out that communication using educational technology, which includes using machines, will never be identical to face-to-face interactions (Counsil of Europe, 2020). Online group interactions have qualities which more traditional, analogue interactions do not have. The most prominent is the
availability of resources and the ese of sharing these in real time (Counsil of Europe, 2020). At the same time, digital interactions do have their challenges. Misunderstandings do for example occur easier in online interactions compared to face-to-face communication. In order to minimize these misunderstandings, the CEFR presents some requirements for successful digital communication.
The framework argues that digital or online messages need to be more explicit and clearer compared to messages in analogue settings (Council of Europe, 2020). Furthermore, the sender needs to make sure the message was understood correctly. Whether a message is understood or not, is easier uncovered in face-to-face conversations where the interlocutors may also use other methods than just language to respond to a message, such as gestures or facial expressions. As a consequence, when taking part in a digital interaction, the participants need to be able to reformulate their message, in order to deal with misunderstandings (Council of Europe, 2020).
2.4 Socio-cultural perspectives on knowledge and learning in the classroom
All theories of learning are based on the fact that humans may acquire knowledge. What separates them is their description of what knowledge is, where it originates and how we as humans acquire this knowledge (Magnar, Lillejord, Nordahl & Helland, 2015).
Socio-cultural cultural theories are based on three fundamental prerequisites. Such theories claim that humans learn when they actively participate in the process of acquiring knowledge.
Moreover, humans are viewed as active co-creators of knowledge. Lastly, in socio-cultural theories, knowledge is not viewed as absolute or static, but as a subject of change. Change is essential. If there were no room for change, humans could not be participating in the process of establishing new knowledge (Magnar et al., 2015).
Socio-cultural theory can be described as an interdisciplinary field, consisting of several independent theories with the same foundation. In the context of this thesis, the theories will be dealt with in a general way, covering the overarching theme and the aspects which are common to most of the theories within the socio-cultural field.
A central aspect for most socio-cultural theories is the interaction between the individual, social and cultural aspects surrounding learning and human cognitive development (Magnar et al., 2015). According to socio-cultural theory, learning occurs when humans use their knowledge in social contexts, through dialogue, interaction and collaboration with others.
In a language classroom context, this may involve the students collaborating on a task, with the teacher in a guiding role, supporting and helping them in their work. In doing so, the teacher
needs knowledge on how to help each student to actively participate in the social learning environment and learn from each other (Magnar et al., 2015). The organisation and structure of the learning environment are crucial in doing so.
Socio-cultural theory argues that humans learn together, so that we become able to later learn individually. This again will prepare us to later participate in the social learning environment. The relationship between the individual and the social community thus becomes a perpetual circle (Magnar et al., 2015). The students are according to socio-cultural theory fundamentally active, and learning is described as active participation in different cultural practices. Learning is an interaction between the students and their environment in different contexts. This context is central to what is learned and how it is learned. The students do for example, not only learn language in the classroom, but also every time they are exposed to aspects of the language in their every-day lives outside the classroom (Magnar et al., 2015).
Consequently, socio-cultural theories are concerned with how we can better understand learning and cognitive development by studying the interaction between the individual and their surroundings. On the basis that humans are social creatures, a language using and self- interpreting animal, socio-cultural theory insists on studying learning and cognitive development as social interaction (Taylor, 1985, in Magnar et al., 2015).
In this context, the primary connections between the individual and the social learning environments are language and communication (Dysthe, 2001, in Magnar et al., 2015). As we interact with our surroundings, we also use different physical tools such as gestures, mimicry and language (Magnar et al., 2015). Language is the most powerful tool we humans poses and has therefore a central place in the socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). Through the use of language, humans observe, reflect and analyse the world around us; we draw conclusions on how and why our surroundings work as they do. Through listening to others and their opinions, we are given the opportunity to gain different perspectives of our surroundings, and we can also alter or modify our own under of them (Magnar et al., 2015).
2.4.1 Social interaction and language learning
Aspects of socio-cultural theories are also present in the Norwegian core curriculum (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020). Here, it is stated that the “school shall support and contribute to the social learning and development of the students through work with subjects and everyday affairs in school” (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020:
item 2.1.). Furthermore, the students´ identity and self-image, opinions and attitudes are created through interaction with others. Social learning occurs when working with subjects, but also
through most other activities at school. Quite correlating with socio-cultural theory, the core curriculum states that learning in a subject cannot be isolated from social learning (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020).
Dialogue is central to social learning. The teacher shall therefore work on promoting communication and collaboration in such a way that the students gain confidence and feel safe when expressing their opinions and feelings (The Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2020).
2.5 Student-teacher relation
In a language classroom based on socio-cultural theory, the relations between the teacher and the students can have significant impact on the students´ social and academic development, both in short and long terms, as teachers can be important role models for the students (Magnar et al., 2015). The transaction model presents the process of development as a result of mutual and complex interactions between the individual and their environment over a longer period of time. In this model, human relations are one of many systems in constant interaction with other systems which contribute to the students´ developmental process. Every relation is unique and will contribute, positively or negatively, to this process (Magnar et al., 2015). Based on this perspective, the relation between a teacher and a student plays an important role in the students´ understanding and attitude towards school and the classroom environment. These relations will affect a student´s ability to regulate their emotions and behaviour in school, contribute to structures in classroom interactions, and provide a base for safety, exploration, mastery and learning (Pianta, 1999, in Magnar et al., 2015).
In general, close and supportive teacher-student relations result in students who thrive in school, grow both emotionally, socially and in their results (Baker, 2006, in Magnar et al., 2015). A Danish study concluded that the teacher´s ability to establish a positive social relation to each student in their class was the most important aspect of their competence in incising the learning in the class. The teacher's ability to lead the whole class and their general knowledge of the subject followed second (Nordenbo et al. 2008, in Magnar et al., 2015). In order to facilitate learning, the subject and the skills it requires also need to have a central role in the relation. Magnar et al. (2015) present several factors crucial in establishing positive relations.
First, the teacher needs to show sensitivity towards the students´ signals and behaviour. This includes the ability to understand others based on their individual premiss (Magnar et al., 2015). Students with restrained behaviour or indistinct signals also need to be shown sensitivity. In a busy classroom, this can sometimes be challenging. This issue may also be present in a digital teaching situation.
Giving students individual and personalized response and feedback and support when needed is also important in making the students feel seen, understood and respected by the teacher, which in turn will influence the student-teacher relation positively (Magnar et al., 2015). Response through eye contact, personal comments, humour, positive and concrete feedback and using the student´s name are all responses which impact relations positively (Magnar et al., 2015). To give the students personalised support, the teacher also needs to know each of them properly. If the teacher does not know each student well enough, it will be difficult to register when they need help and support, or when they can thrive from trying and exploring by themselves (Magnar et al., 2015). Students who know they will receive help and support when they need it, generally spend more time exploring the subject than the students who feel they do not receive help and support when it is needed (Magnar, et al., 2015). All these factors may also be influenced when the language learning context is being digitalised.
Classroom management is also important in establishing positive relations with the students. For the students to feel safe, seen and included in the teaching context, the teacher must be a clear and fair leader. The teacher is the one in charge of the classroom and needs to establish a good structure to the activities, with routines, rules, clear directions and transitions and problem-solving skills, while still maintaining the other aspect described above (Magnar et al., 2015). Finally, all of the above must be done in a way that is customized to each unique classroom and student group, as well as the individual students within these groups (Magnar et al., 2015).
3. Research design and method
All research is based on questions. These questions make up and define the framework of the research. The researcher speculates and makes assumptions about the phenomenon in question. In order to answer the questions concerning the phenomenon, empirical research must be done. The purpose is to answer one or more research questions or to confirm or refute one or more assumptions (Williams, 2007).
In this process, different methods are available to the researcher, which act as tools for the researcher to gather, process and analyse different data. Most of these methods are divided into either qualitative or quantitative methods (Williams, 2007). It is however, also possible to combine aspects from both these categories. This is called a mixed method, and is the selected research method for this thesis (McKey, 2010). By combining a quantitative questionnaire (Appendix A) with a qualitative focus group interview (Appendix B) in a convergent parallel study design, the hope is that the gathered data will contain both a larger selection, as well as
greater detail compared to using either of the methods alone (Grønmo, 2004). In the following chapter, the chosen research methods and the overall research design will be described in further detail.
3.1 Mixed methods
In the process of answering the research questions of this thesis, a convergent parallel mixed methodology was chosen, combining aspects of both the qualitative and the quantitative methods, utilizing the strengths of each method, as well as minimizing their weaknesses (Grønmo, 2004). This method involves conducting the quantitative and the qualitative elements concurrently in the same phase of the research process, and the two methods are weighted equally. Furthermore, the data from the two methods are analysed independently, before the results are discussed together. The act of comparing and combining the findings from the two methods to answer the research questions is known as triangulation (Grønmo, 2004).
The first part of the study consists of an electronic quantitative questionnaire, combining close-ended and open-ended questions, the latter providing more detail of the teachers´ attitudes. Using the online service Nettskjema (UiO, 2021), the anonymous questionnaire questioned English language teachers in lower secondary school on their experiences with teaching the English subject curriculum´s core element communication during the period with distance teaching using educational technology.
The second part of the study is made up of a qualitative focus group interview with the English language teachers of a lower secondary school in south-eastern Norway. The school was selected through a convenience sampling process. The school is an urban school of quite a large size compared to schools in the same district, both in terms of its number of teachers and students.
The choice of method: combining qualitative and quantitative methods, was done based on the wish to gather a fairly wide range of data material, while also gaining some more detail into the practices and thoughts of the language teachers. Furthermore, McKey (2010) argues that a mixed methodology strengthens the total validity of the research, as the one method may cover aspects of the phenomenon the other method misses, and vice versa. Moreover, the questionnaire was piloted with the intention to test its usability and quality to reveal any faults or poorly structured questions. What was looked for when doing so was whether some of the questions were unclear or easily misunderstood (McKay, 2010).
3.1.1 Quantitative research method
As mentioned, the questionnaire was conducted electronically, using the online service Nettskjema, managed by the University of Oslo, licenced to the Østfold University College (UiO, 2021). The questionnaire was open during the period from April to June 2021. The main aim of the questionnaire was to collect quantitative data indicating a general overview of how English language teachers have been working with the core element communication in the English subject curriculum using educational technology during the period of distance teaching.
One of the main reasons for choosing this methodology is the efficiency of the method, making it possible to gather information from a relatively large sample group. By using questionnaires, it is possible to gather information of three categories: factual, behavioural and attitudinal (McKay, 2010). By doing so, it will hopefully be possible to see a connection between the characteristics of each teacher and their choices of approaches and thoughts on their results. Possible factors impacting the results are age, gender, education and teaching experience.
One disadvantage of this method is that questionnaires may provide quite simple and superficial information (McKay, 2010). However, by combining open-ended and close-ended questions, the questionnaire can produce a comprehensive overview of the topic, while still getting some more specific and detailed answers. The close-ended questions have the respondents answer a set of quite specific questions with a set selection of answers to choose from. This makes the responses a bit more uniform, and such easier to answer, code and analyse (McKay, 2010). These questions provide the general overview and the big picture. By complementing these questions with open-ended questions, the data gains some more details.
Open-ended questions are often fill-in questions, where the answer is one or at least a few words and varies too much for the researcher to predict every outcome. They can also require short answers, where the respondents are asked to give detailed information concerning the topic in written form (McKay, 2010).
3.1.1.1 Piloting the questionnaire. Before the questionnaire was distributed, it was piloted by a teacher in the researcher's personal network during March 2021. This was done to ensure that the questionnaire worked as intended and to uncover any weaknesses with the questions or the questionnaire's overall structure. By running a pilot survey, the reliability and validity of the final questionnaire increase (McKey, 2010). To get as realistic results from the pilot survey as possible, the structure and implementation of the pilot questionnaire were made
as similar as possible to the main questionnaire, both in terms of methods and content. The pilot teacher received a link to the questionnaire in Nettskjema (UiO, 2021) and answered it online, in the same way as the main questionnaire was to be completed.
The main difference between the two, was the sample size of the pilot (n=1), compared to the sample size of the main questionnaire (n=31). As the aim of the pilot survey was to ensure the quality and usability of the questionnaire, rather than to gather generalisable data, the selection process also differed from the one in the main questionnaire. The respondent of the pilot survey was recruited through the researcher´s personal network. In addition, the pilot teacher was asked to write down any comments and suggestions concerning the questionnaire, for example whether the design or the content of any of the questions was unclear. These comments would later be used to render the main questionnaire. The majority of the comments concerned clarification. Also, some of questions were merged, others were removed all together as they overlapped with other questions, and were therefore redundant. The structure of the questionnaire was also altered after the pilot-survey and questions and topics were numbered.
3.1.1.2 The Main questionnaire. The main questionnaire was answered in the period between April and June 2021. One of the main advantages of using a questionnaire is that this method may gather a fairly large number of generalizable and standardizable data by surveying teachers´ attitudes, values and opinions during a relatively short time span. Another benefit is the fact that this method allows the respondents to be fully anonymous.
The questionnaire was designed based on aspects of the English subject curriculum concerning communication, findings of the previous research, as well as theoretical perspectives presented previously. Based on the feedback provided by the pilot survey, some adjustments were made to complete the main questionnaire.
The main questionnaire was divided into four parts: general information, the use of educational technology in the English subject, organising the digital English language teaching and social learning. The first part of the questionnaire, General Information (Questions 1.1- 1.6), contains questions concerning relevant aspects of the respondents´ backgrounds, such as gender, age, education and teaching experience. These questions are relevant to get an overview of the sample group, and to uncover any potential connections between the teachers´
backgrounds and their teaching methods, experiences and reflections.
The second part of the questionnaire (Questions 2.1-2.4), The Use of Educational Technology in the English Subject, contains questions concerning availability of educational
technology, for the teachers as well as their students and the teachers´ attitudes towards the use of educational technology in general.
In the third part of the questionnaire (Questions 3.1-3.4), the respondents are asked questions concerning how they have been Organised the Digital English Language Teaching in the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. Aspects such as teaching methods and materials are covered together with the teachers´ experiences concerning the work with the core element communication of the subject curriculum. This part consists of both close-ended and open- ended questions. Thus, the respondents may provide alternative views not covered in the close- ended questions.
In the fourth and last part of the questionnaire (Questions 4.1 - 4.3), the teachers´
attitudes and experiences towards the phenomenon Social Learning, presented in the core curriculum, are examined.
3.1.1.3 Nettskjema. The online tool Nettskjema (UiO, 2021) was used to create and conduct the questionnaire for the thesis. One of the advantages of using this tool was that it made distributing the questionnaire quite easy and efficient through the use of a hyperlink. The questionnaire was made open, meaning no log-in was required. The questionnaire was available only to those who received the hyperlink. The answers from the questionnaire were automatically registered and saved in a database only available to the researcher and Nettskjema (UiO, 2021).
As none of the questionnaire questions asked for sensitive information which could connect any of the respondents to their answers, it was deemed safe to require no login- information. This also made sure the respondents remained fully anonymous, which in turn may have resulted in the respondents answering the questionnaire more truthfully and honestly compared to a less anonymous research method (McKey, 2010).
Despite its administrative advantages, Nettskjema (UiO, 2021) also had one main disadvantage, concerning the ease of use. The respondents had no opportunity to save their answers midway and finish at a later time. This required them to finish the questionnaire in one sitting and set aside enough time to be able to answer all the questions. This may have resulted in some of the teachers rushing through the questions or not answering some at all.
3.1.1.4 Sample selection process. Gathering a sufficient sample size was the main challenge of the research process. In the case of the sample for the questionnaire, this was gathered through a variety of sources. The questionnaire was shared twice through the
Facebook (FB) group Engelsklærere. The members of this group are all English language teachers, either in primary or secondary school. The questionnaire was also shared with two other FB groups. These contained fellow students in the master´s program, one with students who started in 2017, and one with students who started in 2019.
All the FB groups are private, meaning they are only available to their members, who are all English teachers either in primary or secondary school or student teachers. The group administrator of the group Engelsklærere had to give permission before teachers could be asked whether they wanted to answer the questionnaire or not.
The questionnaire was furthermore shared with English language teachers in the researcher's personal network. All of the teachers receiving the questionnaire was encouraged to share it with their colleges or English language teachers they know. This makes it challenging knowing the exact number of teachers who have received it, and thus also how many of the ones who received it actually answered the questionnaire.
Since participation was fully optional, the research was depending on the teachers answering the questionnaire of their own free will. The sample of the questionnaire is therefore a self-selected sample, meaning it consists of the teachers, who out of all those informed, chose to participate in the research. The sample is thus not randomised (Grønmo, 2011). This may also have resulted in a somewhat skewed data set, based on the assumption that most of the teachers answering the questionnaire were teachers who felt successful in the work with communication during the online teaching.
Furthermore, the sample is quite small and therefore not representative for English language teachers as a whole. Consequently, no absolute conclusions can be drawn, and the results only indicate tendencies.
3.1.2 Qualitative research method
The qualitative method used in this thesis consists of a semi-structured focus group interview. This method was selected with the intention to cover the possible variations in the attitudes and experiences the different teachers have, and also in order to have the opportunity to alter, customize or add questions during the interview if new perspectives arose (McKey, 2010). By using this method, the aim was to gain a deeper and more detailed insight into the teachers´ attitudes and experiences, which may add to the data gathered through the questionnaire.
A central tool in the interview process was the interview guide (Appendix B), which was designed based on the main aim of the thesis, the additional research questions and the
theoretical aspects presented in the previous chapter (Ch. 2). The interview guide, similarly to the questionnaire starts off with questions concerning the respondents´ background, giving an insight into the dynamic of the sample group.
Next, the interview guide contains of questions concerning the teachers´ reflections and experiences concerning the teaching of the English subject curriculum´s aspects concerning communication. These questions are divided into the same categories as the questionnaire: The Use of Educational Technology in the English Subject, Organising the Digital English Language Teaching and Social Learning.
The focus group interview was conducted digitally using the video conference tool Teams (Microsoft, 2021). The interview was recorded using a dictaphone app provided by Nettskjema (UiO, 2021). This procedure ensured that the guidelines of NSD concerning anonymity were met. The app made a recording which was immediately delivered to Nettskjema (UiO, 2021) and its associated project, making it available only to the researcher.
To further ensure the respondents´ anonymity, all sensitive information about them, such as their names, age and contact information were anonymized in the transcription of the recording.
To compensate for the inconveniences conducting the group interview digitally may have resulted in, the respondents received the interview questions in advance, meaning they were able to prepare and reflect on their answers before the interview. This procedure may have resulted in a more elaborated and detailed discussion during the interview, e.g., better and more precise answers. At the same time, it is worth mentioning that this may also have its drawbacks. By providing the respondents with the questions in advance, their answers may become more staged and refined. The answers may thus not be as instinctive and spontaneous as one might have wanted.
3.1.2.1 Sample selection. The main aim of the focus group interview was to gain in- depth knowledge of the practical and didactical choices and experiences of the selected language teachers. Therefore, a non-probability sample was selected for the interviews (McKey, 2010). The sample was selected, combining a convenience sample and a purposive sample (McKey, 2010). First, all interviewees are English language teachers. Second, only lower secondary schools and teachers were contacted. Lower secondary school was chosen based on the assumption that these levels were among the ones who were affected the most by the digital distance teaching. Lastly, in order for the research to be as efficient as possible, only schools in the south-eastern part of Norway were contacted. This is also the region closest related to Østfold University Collage.
